A dissenting view on Chris Wallace

I dissent from the general view that Chris Wallace of Fox News did a great or terrific job as moderator.  He failed to ask relevant questions of the Clinton Foundation, the Second Amendment, the Clinton campaign connection to the thugs who caused violence at the Trump rallies, the State Department attempt to have the FBI reclassify Hillary’s email, and the email on Hillary advocating for open borders and open trade. 

Wallace looked good and fair after we have been subjected to Candy Crowley assisting Obama in 2012, and this year we had Lester Candy Holt, Anderson Candy Cooper, and Martha Candy Raddatz, each of whom did his or her best to help Hillary, interrupt Trump, and live up to the real Candy Crowley.  At best, Wallace was average.

Wallace asked Hillary about her email where she says she is for “open borders and open trade.”  Hillary replied that if Wallace would read the remainder of the email, he would see that she was talking about open borders for energy like electrical grids.  This is plainly absurd and an insult to the intelligence of Wallace and the rest of us.  Wallace failed to follow up on this.

The only benefit from this question was not anything Wallace asked, but Hillary’s statement that Wallace should read the remainder of the email.  Inadvertently, Hillary authenticated that the emails as true and correct.  Maybe now Donna Brazile knows that the emails were not doctored by the Russians.

Second, Wallace asked Hillary about the pay-for-play by the Clinton Foundation.  Clinton dodged and droned on about what the Foundation has done for children.  No questions about $25 million from the Saudis, whose treatment of gays and women is Stone-Age.

Third, Wallace did not question the connection between the Hillary campaign and the thugs who disrupted Trump’s rallies.  Surely this is an important topic.

Fourth, he did not ask any questions about Patrick Kennedy, a close aide to Hillary when she served as secretary of state, asking the FBI to reclassify a Hillary email from confidential.

Lastly, the first question about the Supreme Court was a general open-ended question that allowed Hillary to drone on.  The key question was whether Hillary would appoint a justice who believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, as the late great Justice Scalia ruled.  Hillary is on record as disagreeing with Scalia’s opinion because she does not believe that it is a constitutional right.  This is a big difference.  If a justice appointed by Hillary believes that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then there is no individual right to bear arms, and all laws and regulations to restrict an individual right will be upheld by the Court.  This means that the Second Amendment is a nullity.

The Washington Post reported on June 5, 2016 that George Stephanopoulos, former aide to the Clintons, asked Hillary on his Sunday TV show about the Scalia decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a 5-4 decision that upheld an individual right under the Second Amendment:

I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How far would you go on that?

Back in — back in 1993 — I don’t want to show it right here — you actually came out in support of the gun tax.

Let’s listen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you react to a 25 percent sales tax on hand guns and on automatic weapons?

CLINTON: I’m all for that. I just don’t know what else we’re going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.”

Note that Hillary said if it is a constitutional right.  The Court has ruled that it is a constitutional right, just as it has ruled that abortion is a constitutional right.  Ask Hillary why she said “if.”  Does she not believe that it is a constitutional right?   Even if she disagrees with the Court’s decision, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, does she not accept it as the constitutional law of the land just like abortion?  Wallace pressed Trump on if he would accept the election results but failed to ask Hillary if she accepts the Supreme Court decision in Heller.

Further, on 10/01/15, the Free Beacon reported that Hillary told her donors at a private fundraiser in NYC:

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Why not ask if she still wants a 25% tax on guns?

Wallace had ample time, almost a week, and had an assistant to prepare the questions.  The information in this article is easy to find.

Wallace’s most aggressive questioning was repeatedly asking Trump if he would accept the election results.  What does accept mean?  He will challenge, like Al Gore, if there are grounds to challenge.  Trump is not president, so it is not an issue of transfer of power from a president to the winner.

In summary, Wallace was aggressive against Trump on a minor issue but missed the big issues on the Second Amendment, the Clinton campaign paying thugs to disrupt Trump rallies, the corruption at the Clinton Foundation, the State Department’s attempt to bribe the FBI, and the email on open borders.

I dissent from the general view that Chris Wallace of Fox News did a great or terrific job as moderator.  He failed to ask relevant questions of the Clinton Foundation, the Second Amendment, the Clinton campaign connection to the thugs who caused violence at the Trump rallies, the State Department attempt to have the FBI reclassify Hillary’s email, and the email on Hillary advocating for open borders and open trade. 

Wallace looked good and fair after we have been subjected to Candy Crowley assisting Obama in 2012, and this year we had Lester Candy Holt, Anderson Candy Cooper, and Martha Candy Raddatz, each of whom did his or her best to help Hillary, interrupt Trump, and live up to the real Candy Crowley.  At best, Wallace was average.

Wallace asked Hillary about her email where she says she is for “open borders and open trade.”  Hillary replied that if Wallace would read the remainder of the email, he would see that she was talking about open borders for energy like electrical grids.  This is plainly absurd and an insult to the intelligence of Wallace and the rest of us.  Wallace failed to follow up on this.

The only benefit from this question was not anything Wallace asked, but Hillary’s statement that Wallace should read the remainder of the email.  Inadvertently, Hillary authenticated that the emails as true and correct.  Maybe now Donna Brazile knows that the emails were not doctored by the Russians.

Second, Wallace asked Hillary about the pay-for-play by the Clinton Foundation.  Clinton dodged and droned on about what the Foundation has done for children.  No questions about $25 million from the Saudis, whose treatment of gays and women is Stone-Age.

Third, Wallace did not question the connection between the Hillary campaign and the thugs who disrupted Trump’s rallies.  Surely this is an important topic.

Fourth, he did not ask any questions about Patrick Kennedy, a close aide to Hillary when she served as secretary of state, asking the FBI to reclassify a Hillary email from confidential.

Lastly, the first question about the Supreme Court was a general open-ended question that allowed Hillary to drone on.  The key question was whether Hillary would appoint a justice who believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, as the late great Justice Scalia ruled.  Hillary is on record as disagreeing with Scalia’s opinion because she does not believe that it is a constitutional right.  This is a big difference.  If a justice appointed by Hillary believes that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then there is no individual right to bear arms, and all laws and regulations to restrict an individual right will be upheld by the Court.  This means that the Second Amendment is a nullity.

The Washington Post reported on June 5, 2016 that George Stephanopoulos, former aide to the Clintons, asked Hillary on his Sunday TV show about the Scalia decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a 5-4 decision that upheld an individual right under the Second Amendment:

I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How far would you go on that?

Back in — back in 1993 — I don’t want to show it right here — you actually came out in support of the gun tax.

Let’s listen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you react to a 25 percent sales tax on hand guns and on automatic weapons?

CLINTON: I’m all for that. I just don’t know what else we’re going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.”

Note that Hillary said if it is a constitutional right.  The Court has ruled that it is a constitutional right, just as it has ruled that abortion is a constitutional right.  Ask Hillary why she said “if.”  Does she not believe that it is a constitutional right?   Even if she disagrees with the Court’s decision, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, does she not accept it as the constitutional law of the land just like abortion?  Wallace pressed Trump on if he would accept the election results but failed to ask Hillary if she accepts the Supreme Court decision in Heller.

Further, on 10/01/15, the Free Beacon reported that Hillary told her donors at a private fundraiser in NYC:

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Why not ask if she still wants a 25% tax on guns?

Wallace had ample time, almost a week, and had an assistant to prepare the questions.  The information in this article is easy to find.

Wallace’s most aggressive questioning was repeatedly asking Trump if he would accept the election results.  What does accept mean?  He will challenge, like Al Gore, if there are grounds to challenge.  Trump is not president, so it is not an issue of transfer of power from a president to the winner.

In summary, Wallace was aggressive against Trump on a minor issue but missed the big issues on the Second Amendment, the Clinton campaign paying thugs to disrupt Trump rallies, the corruption at the Clinton Foundation, the State Department’s attempt to bribe the FBI, and the email on open borders.